Loading...
1979 07 09 SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 1979 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Matthews. I I NORTHEAST TRANSPORTATION STUDY, NORTH OF LOTUS LAKE BETWEEN POWERS BLVD. AND HIGHWAY 101: Many residents were present. Ray Jackson, Schoell and Madson, presented the engineering repo rt. Ray Jackson - There is an existing street in this area, Pleasant View Road. It is curving and is not adequate for large traffic volumes. There is potential for a tremendous amount of development in this area. The area immediately abutting Pleasant View Road can easily generate 650 dwelling units. The numoer of tri ps that are going to be generated by those dwell ing units can range anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 but generally there are going to be many more cars on Pleasant View Road than there are right now. We feel that Pleasant View Road is not a safe road to handle large traffic volume-s'so what we have done is define an alignment at this time. That alignment, if it is adopted by the City Council, would then be adopted by all the development in the area and if it's incorporated in those development plans then traffic will be provided for as the development occurs. We are not proposing that the road be built at this time. We are not proposing that it be assessed~at this time. The existance of a road is acceptable to the state åid system administrators and they have accepted it for state aid financing if and when it is ever built. We are proposing a two lane road. We are proposing a 36 foot width because of the requirements of the state aid office. It would have a design speed of 35 m.p.h. There would be limited access to it from new development which is feasible because it would go through basically new development areas. There would be stop signs periodically at intersections. Things like that would tend to discourage the road as a major arterial or a minor arterial through the area. We don't envision it as being a major street to carry traffic from Edina to points west. The Crosstown is extended in some fashion or if it isn't extended really isn!t material. What is material is that there is potential for enough development immediately adjacent to this road, we feel, to justify the adoption of an alignment for a future road by the City Council. Dean Wetze1,representing the neighborhood, spoke against the proposed street. Philip Getts, representing Pf1aumwell Development Partnership and area residents, also spoke against the proposed street. Councilman Neveaux moved to disapprove the Schoell and Madson report dated May 22, 1979, on the northeast Chanhassen East/West Corridor Road and the June 27, 1979, addendum. Motion seconded by Councilman Matthews. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Matthews, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF THE JUNE 11, 1979, CARVER BEACH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 9, 1979 I Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order at 9:15 p.m. with the following interested persons pres en t: Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne Pam and Jeff Kleiner, 7000 Carver Beach Road Sarah and Bruce Lantz, 7030 Carver Beach Road Phyllis Pope, 7055 Carver Beach Road Chris Welsh, 825 West 68th Street Robert Amick, 605 West 70th Street C. M. Niemeyer, 6798 Huron Mrs. Frank Moulton, 7205 Carver Beach Road Council Meeting July 9, 1979 H. E. and Lulu Sampson, 6940 Huron Elizabeth LeTendre, 6900 Huron Mermon Tock, 6598 Huron Merlin Kinkel, 6950 Redman Lane John Cox, 6840 Shawnee Lane Mike Wegler, 660 Iroquois Vernon Kerber, 7241 Powers Blvd. Al K1ingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Bob and Cherie Hruska, 6940 Redman Lane Stuart Johnson, 6941 Redman Lane Joseph Abernathy, 6930 Redman Lane Art Graikowski, 6931 Redman Lane Jack Gi 11 Ray Jackson Russell Larson -2- I' Ray Jackson answered questions raised by Phyllis Pope in her letter to'the Council. Ray Jackson - I believe we addressed most of her questions previously but a couple of them we did not and I would like to address them at this time. Her first question - Does any group other than the city engineers recommend this project, such as the Dept. of Natural Resources, Watershed District or Pollution Control Agency? The Watershed District has reviewed the drainage in this area in conjunction with the New Horizon improvement and they have stipul ated some conditions for New Horizon to meet as far as their discharge from their site until this drainageway is improved in~ome fashion. The other questions were regard to the fact that this improvement project is similar to the one proposed for Lot 12 and it is very similar. The major difference between this and I Lot 12 drainage area is that a large portion of this drainageway was and still is undeveloped. Whereas the Lot 12 drainageway was a collector point for existing storm sewers throughout the Western Hills area and the problems there were more specific and more easily defined. In this particular area, until New Horizon development plans came along and along with their drainage study it was really an unknown entity as to how that area would develop. Secondly it was asked, during the laying of sewer pipe in the creek bed three years ago, what was the reason followed in returning the creek to the original state? Basically the sewer pipe that went in at that time crossed the alignment of the ditch which was in some areas well defined and in other areas not so well defined. It was a requi rement to res tore the creek to that conditi on. That was a requirement of the watershed district. It was also determined at that time that this was no~a drainage improvement but a sewer and water improvement and the question of making a major drainage improvement at that time was not addressed. There was in fact check dams installed in this area three years ago which functioned for a very short time basically because of the impact of the very severe storm in 1977. I think the rest of the questions in Mrs. Pope IS letter have been answered. I would also like to point something out that in the comments made by Mr. Hi bbert Hi 11 he quoted in part from his 1 etter "We urge improvement of the existing drainage in the ways generally indicated in the notice. I We oppose construction of a service road along the drainageway." Because of Mr. Hillis spoken opposition and written opposition to doing such we would probably not recommend further consideration of the road in conjunction with the drainageway. One of the other advantages of constructing that road was beside the access to the lift station would have provided access to the ditch for maintenance purposes. 1 I I Council Meeting July 9, 1979 -3- Another question that" came~urf was the cost of easements. The costs stated for the improvement were based on no easement acquisition costs included. To say what easements would cost is virtually impossible at this time because you have to negotiate acquisition of easements. Art Graikowski - There is one individual that's involved with this culvert and two years ago he had 8 inches of water in his basement. Could we impose upon the City to use their equipment to widen the easement thats there to have that area cleaned out and build our own retention pond on that side of the road at no cost to us from the City to hold that water on that side so he doesn't get it backed up into his basement. The easement is there. The county road is there. If we could widen it out to the full easement rights I think we can build enough retention that he would not have this water problem. Mayor Hobbs - It would be a possibility to look at how we can handle a local drainage problem within a local area. Art Graikowski - We are asking for anormal-maihtenaÎ1ce cléan uP' of the culvert and use of the full ease'l11ent then we would eliminate this. Phyllis Pope - There is one dam on Mr. Hillis property, the one closest to the lake, where the City has put rip rap in to strengthen the dam and it seems to be holding very well. There is no erosion in the creek. Why can It each of these dams be treated in the same way so that the creek would not continually erode. Couldn't it just be rip rapped at the dam area and the creek cleaned out of the rubbish and limbs that are clogging it right now. The culvert under the Moulton driveway is about half full of limbs and rubbish right now. Ray Jackson - It is my opinion that the erosion problem wou1dn't be solved but perhaps would be tempo~&rily curtailed again until the reoccurance of a significant storm at which point ~rosion would probably reoccur. The check dams serve a function in slowing down water and accumulating silt behind them and that requires cleaning out periodically which is a fairly expensive procedure in an area like that where it is very inaccessible. That was the idea, I guess, when they were put in initially that it was a low cost way to hopefully solve a problem and given a couple of dry years since they were put in rather than the heavy rains that we have experienced for a couple of years we may not be here toni ght. As far as the capacity of the pipe under the Moul ton dri veway, the ca 1 cul ati ons are all based on the full carrying capacity of that pipe. There is some under mining under the pipe but cleaning it out and replacing rip rap would be a short term way of improving the existing situation. Conrad Fi s kness - Carver County Representati ve on the Ri 1 ey/Pu-rgatorý Creek Watershed District. This proposal as we11 as several others that have been undertaken by the City and reviewed by us have been of considerable concern to us over a number of years. The past record of moving the major storm water after it's been collected and then moving into open ditches, we would challenge that approach. We have reluctantly approved some projects of that type here in the past and we have expressed reservations at the time that we approved them and our reservations have proven out much to our dismay. Lot 12 is one example. We reluctantly went along with that idea back when it was done and as far as we are concerned that's a disaster. We have done some investigative work with regard to the cost of maintenance on above ground movement of water, granted the initial cost is greater for underground, yet, it has been the opinion of the people that we have talked to that every Council Meeting July 9, 1979 -4- five to eight years you have major maintenance required. In 15 to 20 years you will buy back any difference. We are concerned about the environmental affect of the above ground movement of I storm water. We were disappointed on the first go-round that the option of looking at underground piping wasn't even included in part of the feasibility study. We feel that is one very viable alternative and we would urge that would be looked into further. Mayor Hobbs - What are the prospects for municipalities getting major funding from the watershed district? Conrad Fiskness - We are not funded to the extent of being able to undertake like that. We have worked on some cooperative projects with various municipalities. A petition was presented, signed by residents of Greenwood Shores, opposed to the improvement of the culvert under Powers Blvd. Al Klingelhutz - Has Chanhassen ever been in one of your cooperative projects? Conrad Fiskness Yes, the program for the retention pond just on the east side of Fronti er Trail. Merlyn Kinkel - I moved to Greenwood Shores in 1964. That happens to be the year they put in the road. The county changed County Road 17, straightened it out, etc. At that particular time we had as many lots in Greenwood Shores as we do right now and it seems to me that if there is a problem it's the County Engineerls problem and they should get involved in helping us pay for that. They knew the number of lots that were in Greenwood Shores. If that culvert is undersized it surely not the fault of these people and myself who happen to live in that particular I drainage area. I am terribly concerned that all of a sudden 15 or 20 people are going to pick up $11,000 tab on something that the County should have been able to solve 15 years ago. Ray Jackson - If the Council were to include it in I would recommend that you include it in contingent upon some participation and I would think a significant amount of participation by the county. We consider it to be a county problem. Mrs. Gordon Tock - We are right down there at the end of the lake and Ilm telling you the water that comes down that road, the garbage and the limbs that are swept into that lake and the front part of our lot is nothing but a soup hole. I understand there is a leak in the sewer down there and on these warm humid days it smells just like an outhouse. Jack Gill - I think the smell you are referring to is from the lift station. The water does run down there very fast and this is from the Devil IS Slide drainage way. It always has and it1s probably more so now since we have paved everything and put berms. We took the ditches out and you probably have more water now than you ever had because we have paved a lot more of the roads and we have put berms on the sides and therefore there is more water coming down there. Robert Amick - Regarding the proposed drainage improvement project, as it was proposed, I think there are three basic questions that need to be examined when I we consider the total feasibility of the project. Is it absolutely necessary? This creek, similar to its existing alignment has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Conservation now the Department of Natural Resources as an intermittent stream. Today, this stream still cannot be traced uninterrupted to its source during every season of the year and it may therefore still be classified as an I I I Council Meeting July 9, 1979 -5- intermittent stream. The status of the stream has not changed in the past 26 years. We will therefore presume that the so called erosion prob 1 em encountered today also cannot have charryed' s i gnifi cantly from any erosion problems considered- or encountered 26 years ago. I submit that any condi tion that has-existed -for 26 years can certainly be 1 ived with as it continues to exist now. Secondly, who is going to benefit from the project? One justification for the project according to an article in the Carver County Herald, is that the erosion has uprooted several trees and presently threatens others: The City IS ori ginal proposal i ncl udes cl eari ng and grubbi ng adjacent to the stream. The"City apP,ears to be saying, either the erosion will kill the trees or the contractor will come in and cut them down. - Who stands to benefit from that? Either way the trees are lost~ Maybe the property owners along the stream will be benefitting but these same property owners seem to be opposed to the project. The only ones that seem to be benefitting from the project are possibly the City Engineer,- the City Attorney, and the contractor who ultimately may end up getting the project. Thirdly, is the project cost effecti ve? It seems to be that the project can I t be justified on the basis of total necessity and if itls opposed by the residents directed affected by the proposed benefits of the project, it can It be cost effective. What is the money being spent for? Councilman Matthews moved to close the publ i c hearing. Motion seconded by Counci lman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Matthews. No negative votes. Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. CARVER BEACH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 79-1: Councilman Pearson moved to authorize the channel improvement of existing drainage way, including modification of channel sections to reduce velocity, elimination or-modification'of bends to-minimize turbulence, lining of channel with material that will provide stability. Motion seconded by Councilman Matthews. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs and Councilman Pearson. Councilmen Matthews, Neveaux, and Geving voted no. Motion failed. Councilman Neveaux moved to disapprove the installation of reinforced concrete culvert under County Road 17 at Greenwood Shores and construction of a service road along realigned drainage way from Carver Beach Road to Lotus Lake as setforth in the public hearing notice. Motion seconded by Counci 1man Matthews. Thefo11 owing voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Matthews. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Matthews. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Don As hworth Ci ty Manager